de Burgh II
11-27-2014, 04:05 AM
The large body of accumulated evidence has important public health and clinical implications. Evidence is sufficient to advise against routine supplementation, and we should translate null and negative findings into action. The message is simple: Most supplements do not prevent chronic disease or death, their use is not justified, and they should be avoided. This message is especially true for the general population with no clear evidence of micronutrient deficiencies, who represent most supplement users in the United States and in other countries (9).
The evidence also has implications for research. Antioxidants, folic acid, and B vitamins are harmful or ineffective for chronic disease prevention, and further large prevention trials are no longer justified. Vitamin D supplementation, however, is an open area of investigation, particularly in deficient persons. Clinical trials have been equivocal and sometimes contradictory. For example, supplemental vitamin D, which might prevent falls in older persons, reduced the risk for falls in a few trials, had no effect in most trials, and increased falls in 1 trial. Although future studies are needed to clarify the appropriate use of vitamin D supplementation, current widespread use is not based on solid evidence that benefits outweigh harms (10).
With respect to multivitamins, the studies published in this issue and previous trials indicate no substantial health benefit. This evidence, combined with biological considerations, suggests that any effect, either beneficial or harmful, is probably small. As we learned from voluminous trial data on vitamin E, however, clinical trials are not well-suited to identify very small effects, and future trials of multivitamins for chronic disease prevention in well-nourished populations are likely to be futile.
In conclusion, β-carotene, vitamin E, and possibly high doses of vitamin A supplements are harmful. Other antioxidants, folic acid and B vitamins, and multivitamin and mineral supplements are ineffective for preventing mortality or morbidity due to major chronic diseases. Although available evidence does not rule out small benefits or harms or large benefits or harms in a small subgroup of the population, we believe that the case is closed— supplementing the diet of well-nourished adults with (most) mineral or vitamin supplements has no clear benefit and might even be harmful. These vitamins should not be used for chronic disease prevention. Enough is enough.
http://annals.org/article.aspx?articleid=1789253
This makes sense if you think about; its a multi-million dollar business within pharmaceutical companies just to market you with false information even if your an overall healthy person. This doesn't apply to everyone, but there are some people who have been persuaded to think this. If you compare a person who is solely dependent on dietary supplements to someone who eats a whole variety of foods you will find the person who eats a variety of healthy foods are getting better nutritional intakes with a diverse array of vitamin intake that works in the body's liking whereas the person dependent on dietary supplements is only focused solely on one particular vitamin(s) that gets absorbed within our body, but doesn't get any nutritional intake because these synthetic vitamins are foreign to the body's biological disposition.
The only real nutritional value you can get is from farmer's markets (local farms or stores) or even your own garden if you have one; if your own a budget nor the time; just be vigilant concerning the contents of the food you buy in any major corporate supermarkets. The reason why this is because if you compared the lifestyle of people hundred years ago compared to now; you will see a higher prevalence of chronic diseases today despite the longer lifespan we have; people had better nutritional intake compared to now because we went from a food culture to a food science. If you were to take an apple from the 1930's and compare it to apples today you will see that the apple back then would equate to three apples in terms of nutrition value due to mass commercialism favoring quantity over quality. That is why anything artificial in terms food's today lacks low nutritional value or GMOs (genetically modified foods); don't be fooled if a pop-tarts box markets to you saying, "it will help lower heart disease"; chances are its a marketing ploy to fool you. That is why broaden your food selection with a diverse array of fruits, vegetables, meats, etc. because chances are you will get a whole array of well needed nutritional intake compared to the $8.00 multivitamin supplement. If your in need for healthier alternatives; go for natural foods rather than overly-priced supplements that are trying to fool you otherwise.
The evidence also has implications for research. Antioxidants, folic acid, and B vitamins are harmful or ineffective for chronic disease prevention, and further large prevention trials are no longer justified. Vitamin D supplementation, however, is an open area of investigation, particularly in deficient persons. Clinical trials have been equivocal and sometimes contradictory. For example, supplemental vitamin D, which might prevent falls in older persons, reduced the risk for falls in a few trials, had no effect in most trials, and increased falls in 1 trial. Although future studies are needed to clarify the appropriate use of vitamin D supplementation, current widespread use is not based on solid evidence that benefits outweigh harms (10).
With respect to multivitamins, the studies published in this issue and previous trials indicate no substantial health benefit. This evidence, combined with biological considerations, suggests that any effect, either beneficial or harmful, is probably small. As we learned from voluminous trial data on vitamin E, however, clinical trials are not well-suited to identify very small effects, and future trials of multivitamins for chronic disease prevention in well-nourished populations are likely to be futile.
In conclusion, β-carotene, vitamin E, and possibly high doses of vitamin A supplements are harmful. Other antioxidants, folic acid and B vitamins, and multivitamin and mineral supplements are ineffective for preventing mortality or morbidity due to major chronic diseases. Although available evidence does not rule out small benefits or harms or large benefits or harms in a small subgroup of the population, we believe that the case is closed— supplementing the diet of well-nourished adults with (most) mineral or vitamin supplements has no clear benefit and might even be harmful. These vitamins should not be used for chronic disease prevention. Enough is enough.
http://annals.org/article.aspx?articleid=1789253
This makes sense if you think about; its a multi-million dollar business within pharmaceutical companies just to market you with false information even if your an overall healthy person. This doesn't apply to everyone, but there are some people who have been persuaded to think this. If you compare a person who is solely dependent on dietary supplements to someone who eats a whole variety of foods you will find the person who eats a variety of healthy foods are getting better nutritional intakes with a diverse array of vitamin intake that works in the body's liking whereas the person dependent on dietary supplements is only focused solely on one particular vitamin(s) that gets absorbed within our body, but doesn't get any nutritional intake because these synthetic vitamins are foreign to the body's biological disposition.
The only real nutritional value you can get is from farmer's markets (local farms or stores) or even your own garden if you have one; if your own a budget nor the time; just be vigilant concerning the contents of the food you buy in any major corporate supermarkets. The reason why this is because if you compared the lifestyle of people hundred years ago compared to now; you will see a higher prevalence of chronic diseases today despite the longer lifespan we have; people had better nutritional intake compared to now because we went from a food culture to a food science. If you were to take an apple from the 1930's and compare it to apples today you will see that the apple back then would equate to three apples in terms of nutrition value due to mass commercialism favoring quantity over quality. That is why anything artificial in terms food's today lacks low nutritional value or GMOs (genetically modified foods); don't be fooled if a pop-tarts box markets to you saying, "it will help lower heart disease"; chances are its a marketing ploy to fool you. That is why broaden your food selection with a diverse array of fruits, vegetables, meats, etc. because chances are you will get a whole array of well needed nutritional intake compared to the $8.00 multivitamin supplement. If your in need for healthier alternatives; go for natural foods rather than overly-priced supplements that are trying to fool you otherwise.